Innovating South-South Cooperation: Policies, Challenges and Prospects

By Manmohan Agarwal, Karin Costa Vazquez, Cristina D’Alessandro and 12 more

This book presents novel approaches to further South­South Cooperation (SSC) on a global scale. The evolving aid architecture and mounting development challenges demand an urgent and critical review of existing aid modalities, policy-making and forums for international cooperation. With the rise of emerging powers, we face an important question: ls the changing global order transforming the nature of development cooperation? Promoting equitable broad-based growth in order to alleviate poverty, calls for a new understanding of the principles of development assistance, good governance, transparency, ownership, and accountability.

This book is published in English.
-

Les changements en matière d’aide internationale et les défis soulevés par les crises alimentaires, financières et énergétiques exigent un examen critique des conventions actuelles en matière d’assistance et d’élaboration de politiques et de forums décisionnels en coopération internationale. 

À la lumière de la montée de pouvoirs émergents, une analyse de la manière dont un ordre mondial en mutation transforme la nature de la coopération pour le développement s’impose.

La promotion d’une croissance économique équitable et d’une réduction de la pauvreté exige une nouvelle compréhension de l’aide au développement et une gouvernance, transparence, propriété et imputabilité optimales.

L’avenir de la Coopération Sud-Sud repose sur de nombreux facteurs, comme l’amélioration des moyens de communication et le partage des connaissances entre pays partenaires, l’adoption d’une approche analytique pour définir les biens publics régionaux et mondiaux, l’identification et l’évaluation des bonnes et des mauvaises pratiques et la fusion des priorités économiques et sociales.

Au moyen d'études de cas, les auteurs proposent des approches novatrices pour promouvoir la Coopération Sud-Sud et établir des politiques de développement international efficaces.

Ce livre est publié en anglais.

• Language: English
• Publisher: University of Ottawa Press
• Release date: Aug 27, 2019
• ISBN: 9780776623207

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

Conceptual Foundations of South-South Cooperation

Leah McMillan Polonenko, Hany Besada, M. Evren Tok, and Ajarat Bada

South-South Cooperation (SSC) is both an old concept and a new idea, an old analysis and a new policy directive. Although the notion has existed for decades, it has grown in importance and function, especially since the early 2000s. It has transformed global economic structures, forcing us to redefine traditionally understood words, most notably region and development. It has manufactured new alliances, new trading partners, and new methods for economic development, especially for emerging countries. Most recently, it has been recognized as such an important concept that the United Nations (UN) has added SSC to its observance days—September 12 will now mark the international recognition of the importance of this concept, which has been gaining in momentum. At the sixty-second session of the General Assembly (A/62/295), the UN Secretary-General called on the international development community, including the UN, to help scale up the impact of SSC by (a) optimizing the use of South-South approaches in achieving the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals; (b) intensifying multilateral support for South-South initiatives to address common development challenges; (c) fostering inclusive partnerships for SSC, including triangular and public–private partnerships; (d) improving the coherence of UN system support for such cooperation; and (e) encouraging innovative financing for South-South and Triangular Cooperation. Two years prior, at the 2005 G8 summit in Gleneagles, the emergence of new economies and the significance of their trade with each other, including Brazil, China, India, and Malaysia, were both noted and explored.

Since these meetings, SSC has grown in both significance and magnitude. Emerging and middle-income countries especially have experienced a significant increase in trading relationships between trading partners in similar economic positions. Najam and Thrasher assert that the global financial downturn and stalled multilateral trade negotiations have spurred the growth of these forms of cooperation (Najam and Thrasher 2012, 1). The UN Office for SSC is continually researching and drafting policies that address the peculiarities of SSC as both a policy measure and a practice. Yet, in spite of the important role these forms of cooperation play in global trading affairs, and in turn socio-political realities, a critical study of SSC is lacking in scholarship. The concept has been gaining momentum faster than academic literature has been able to keep up.

This volume arose out of an evident lack of literature on SSC, both in academia and the policy world. Current forms, mechanisms, and dynamics of international affairs, including development assistance, trade, and regional social policy, are creating linkages across borders in new and exciting ways. For example, the shifting dominance of emerging southern countries such as India, China, Nigeria, and Turkey is in part owing to the increasing importance of groupings such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey). The chapters in this book highlight historical as well as contemporary challenges, realities, and opportunities for SSC and shed light on prospects.

SSC and Its Discontents

South-South Cooperation (SSC) is in essence any form of cooperation, though normally it refers to trade and socio-economic policy frameworks between two or more countries or regions that are situated in the Global South. The term Global South is much more nuanced than a geographical description. Although these countries are predominantly located in the southern hemisphere, the term refers to their conceptualization as developing or middle-income countries rather than their geographical location. For example, Turkey is technically in the northern hemisphere but is regarded as southern given its emerging income status; Australia and New Zealand are technically southern but are not referred to as part of the Global South. The United Nations (UN) Office for SSC defines South-South Cooperation as a broad framework for collaboration among countries of the South in the political, economic, social, cultural, environmental and technical domains. Involving two or more developing countries, it can take place on a bilateral, regional, subregional or interregional basis (UNSSC 2014). This volume is predicated on this definition; in sum, SSC is any form of cooperation between countries or regions defined as being located in the Global South. This shifts traditional vertical forms of cooperation (top-down or north-south) to ones that are horizontal in scope.

Although SSC is emerging as a new concept in the academic and policy fields, the idea has historical precedence that must be considered if we are to have a robust understanding of the term. The genesis of SSC dates back to the post–Second World War era during the liberation of Asian and African countries (Modi 2011), when countries in these regions began gaining independence and creating linkages with former colonies. The 1960s and 1970s ushered in the Non-Aligned Movement, Organization of African Union, Group of 77, and UN Conference on Trade and Development. These each uniquely indicated the global recognition that southern policies and economies mattered, and necessitated attention. Despite these examples of SSC at this time, north-south forms of cooperation dominated the post-Second World War era through to the 1990s. The importance placed on international development assistance and the dominance of the United States and USSR as a result of the Cold War largely explains this focus on North-South cooperation.

This call to action spurred on the establishment of the UN Development Programme’s Special Unit for SSC by the UN General Assembly in 1978. Its mandate is to promote, coordinate, and support SSC and cooperation within the UN by focusing on policy dialogue, policy development, public–private partnerships, and southern development exchange. Another body, the United Nations Office for SSC, has four main arms with which it encourages and enables SSC. The Global South-South Development (GSSD) policy section sets directions, the GSSD Academy produces solutions, the GSSD Expo showcases solutions, and the South-South Global Assets and Technology Exchange transfers solutions. Previously, the GSSD Expo was held at the UN’s European headquarters, but for the first time in 2013, it was held at the United Nations Environment Programme headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya—the first Southern country to host the prestigious event. Regional South-South development expos are also picking up steam, with the first Arab States Regional South-South Development Expo taking place from February 18 to 20, 2014.

The guiding principles of SSC are solidarity among peoples and countries of the South in order to improve their well-being, self-reliance, and attainment of internationally agreed development goals such as the Millennium Development Goals. All SSC initiatives must be decided by the South countries themselves with deference to national ownership and sovereignty, non-conditionality, mutual benefit as equal partners, and non-interference in other domestic affairs. SSC facilitates knowledge sharing, skills training, expertise exchange, and resource distribution in order to achieve development goals together. SSC reaches across different sectors (such as health and education). Stemming from this initial framework, SSC has also driven increased South-South trade, foreign direct investment between South countries, and other forms of exchanges.

In the ever-changing arena of global development governance, SSC entails diverse forms of cooperation among developing countries. The evolving aid architecture and mounting development challenges, caused by recent food, financial, and energy crises, demand an urgent and critical review of existing aid modalities, policymaking, and forums for international cooperation. An important question in this context is to what extent the changing global order and the rise of emerging powers is transforming the nature of development cooperation. Increasing the role and visibility of emerging powers and their institutional establishments such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa), G20, Regional Economic Economies, and regional development banks, as well as the increasing importance of emerging economies on the global stage will require a new understanding of what constitutes development assistance, good governance, transparency, ownership, and accountability that will promote equitable broad-based economic growth and lead to poverty alleviation. A goal of this book is to begin to break down the divide between traditional and emerging development partners. We argue that SSC is a fertile area to study these changes and transformations at this critical juncture.

As many chapters will reveal, the future of SSC depends on many factors, such as improving means of communication and sharing of knowledge among partner countries and adopting a more analytical approach to define emerging modalities and practices of SSC. Thereby, this volume brings together an array of studies, focused on the various regions, to examine the concepts, analyses, and distinctions that shape the forms and functions of South-South Cooperation. Despite SSC now existing as an important component in understanding global economic relationships and functions, there still remains limited scholarship in the area of SSC. This publication fills this gap in the literature, addressing both SSC as a concept and providing several regional and international examples of these forms of cooperation and their importance. We understand that SSC is not a new term, rather one that has become increasingly relevant in recent history. This opening chapter discusses the history of SSC and its relevance for actors, policies, and constructions in the global economic system. We argue that SSC can best be understood by examining its three areas of influence: policy, institutions, and regional focus. These areas, presented by theme, are not only indicative of isolated characteristics of SSC, but also illustrate why and how modalities, policies, and prospects pertaining to SSC are crucial in understanding major development challenges in today’s world.

Despite the momentum of SSC, the concept is not without its critics or skeptics. Cheru (2016) places the analysts of SSC into four broad categories: alarmists, skeptics, critics of new imperialism, and cheerleaders. The latter involves those who are proponents of SSC, who recognize the possibilities that have not been otherwise available to Southern states. As SSC has expanded the number of actors from which Southern countries can choose for aid and trade, opportunities are exponentially increased (Abdenur and Da Fonseca 2013). This volume recognizes the opportunities that SSC brings the Global South, and thus falls within this category.

However, the other categories, as conceptualized by Cheru, need mentioning. The alarmists contend that these new forms are threatening global and national security of traditional Northern partners, especially the United States and its allies. Post–Cold War development cooperation has shifted to include dimensions of human security and, more recently, international terrorism (Thede 2013). Consequently, changes to the North-South hierarchy are scrutinized for their ability to increase power to states that are perceived to be a threat—the so-called rogue donors (Mawdsley 2012, 1). Countries actively involved as SSC donors with poor human rights and democracy records are especially treated with caution.

The skeptics regard traditional forms of development assistance as playing a central role in the development agenda and are more critical of new forms taking over. Skeptics still critique the traditional North-South nature of development but fear the removal of this construct altogether. Abdenur and Da Fonseca have noted that SSC is sometimes at odds with the very norms, values, and practices of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Development Assistance Committee (Abdenur and Da Fonseca 2013, 1475). This provides evidence that the new agenda may be too much of a contrast from old systems of development. Mawdsley (2012, 1) notes that those within the ‘mainstream’ aid community now welcome the specific expertise and additional resources that the (re-)emerging development partners provide, but also express concerns that the fragile gains made by the so-called traditional donor community with respect to the good governance agenda will be undermined.

Cheru’s third category, the critics of new imperialism, place critiques of imperialism upon the new actors involved as the most powerful players in SSC. Readers familiar with the imperialism critique will undoubtedly recognize its main assertion—another form of imperialism is emerging as new powers threaten local livelihoods, politics, culture, and so on. Three major threats to the SSC agenda can be conceptualized in this category: imports and exports from these emerging powers presenting unfair competition to local markets; the importation of labour that fails to create jobs; and limited knowledge in these industries in their country of focus (Cheru 2016). Gudynas (2016, 724) analyzes the experience of Latin American states, recognizing that examples of SSC, including Southern Common Market [trans.] (MERCOSUR) and Union of South American Nations [trans.], (UNASUR) are limited and focused on conventional assistance. Within his analysis, he contends that SSC is nothing more than a means to reinforce conventional varieties of development (Gudynas 2016, 721). China even endorses a revised but still similar myth of the stages of development, just like the strategies of the western industrialized countries (Gudynas 2016, 724). To some, then, SSSC can be perceived as a recanted traditional concept rather than an entirely new position.

What is the way forward? Some authors contend that it is the lens of SSC that needs strengthening in order to see the possibilities the concept brings. For example, Cheru (2016, 594) asserts that countries can negotiate from a position of strength only if committed political leaders with long-term vision are prepared to act, regardless of the risks involved in SSC. Quadir (2013, 321) emphasizes a need for a unified platform based on a shared development vision as key to proper SSC enactment. DeHart (2012, 1360) expertly reminds us that it is "not just who does development, but how it is done and to what ends that are equally imperative to calculate. De Renzio and Seifert (2014, 1867) observe that SSC is not one unified new idea; that Brazil and China are the SSC leaders" but Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey are part of a so-called second wave of SSC actors, who need to be analyzed for the new contributions they bring to SSC. Esteves and Assunção (2014) view SSC as altering international development, through both new agents and new practices, as was especially noted following the 2011 High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan.

Despite the skepticism and critics regarding South-South Cooperation, the authors of this book argue that these forms of cooperation can, do, and will have profound influences and opportunities for the Global South, especially in terms of social and economic significance.

A Socio-Economic Analysis of SSC

While academic literature examining South-South Cooperation (SSC) is quite limited, these small volumes have done well to greatly enhance our understanding of SSC and its implications, particularly for the Global South. Our volume adds to this scholarship, but also touches on the socio-economic dimensions of SSC. This is a significant addition to current SSC research, which has done well to examine economic implications. Using a socio-economic lens, this volume attempts to enhance understanding of both the economic and social effects of SSC.

It is important to recognize that SSC takes both its name and its analysis from the much more closely studied forms of North-South Cooperation (NSC), which have been under scrutiny since our current understanding of international development first began materializing in the aftermath of the Second World War. The first forms of development policy underpinned by modernization theory focused on purely economic pushes for development; the role that infrastructure played in a country’s development was of particular consideration. Dependency theory criticized the downfalls of modernization theory, especially the assumptions that development would follow Rostow’s stages of growth if modernization was conceptualized. First coined in Latin America, this theory also recognized the inequalities that the development system, and the global economic system at large, perpetuated. In order for the most developed countries (called the core) to continue to flourish, there always needed to be the periphery, which revolved around the core’s policies, ideals, and wants. By the 1970s, then, international development began to focus on more social indicators for development: women in development (then women and development and now gender and development), education, and health concerns were a particular focus. And although development policy has still been criticized for focusing on economic growth, often this is contrasted with the lack of focus on social indicators. For example, the United Nations Children’s Fund report entitled Adjustment with a Human Face, issued in 1985, criticized the lack of human indicators evident within the International Monetary Fund’s structural adjustment programs. The report was developed further and published as a book in two volumes, using the same title (Cornia et al. 1987).

This focus on social indicators has been criticized. World Bank (2013) data reveal that since the 1970s, Africa’s percentage of exports worldwide has declined by over 60 percent. Calderisi (2007) argues that this is a dominant reason for perpetual underdevelopment—that African nations have not been contenders in the global market largely because development policy has focused on social indicators. One needs to only glance at the Millennium Development Goals, which have framed development policy over the last two decades, to see the focus on social rather than economic indicators—education, health, food, and climate change are all mentioned; job creation and economic advancement are not.

International development has supporters, critics, and those completely opposed to the practices, including Moyo and Easterly. Indeed, NSC is exposed to global scrutiny (Chaturvedi et al. 2012, 23), with measures including the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action as examples of attempts to overcome the critics. Yet, both SSC and NSC are underpinned by the balance of self-interest and humanitarian concern (Chaturvedi et al. 2012, 245). What is different, according to these authors, is that SSC countries have yet to receive the mass amount of scrutiny and critique as NSC attempts. In fact, unlike NSC relationships, which must show the developed countries behaving in an altruistic, unselfish manner, SSC relationships are premised on the understanding that the form of cooperation is mutually beneficial to both countries. In addition, while Northern powers focus on human rights and governance measures within their recipient countries while creating cooperation objectives, SSC relationships are premised on sovereignty—a fact that has made SSC relationships so appealing to some countries. For example, whereas the West withholds aid when countries are thought to be committing human rights abuses, Southern countries such as China come in without facing any scrutiny (Alden 2007).

Recognizing the social impact of policies and realities has been paramount to analyses of North-South Cooperation. In recognizing that SSC takes its name and its analysis from NSC, we contend that it is through a socio-economic analysis that we can best understand SSC as a concept and recognize its implications. Thus, this publication uses this approach; it also includes chapters that look at more social-specific issues, such as gender.

The Regional Focus of SSC

Analyzing SSC from within its regional focus is important for understanding the variances of the cooperation by region. While SSC is exercised globally, regional ties do exist that create alliances within countries, either geographically or for other socio-cultural and economic reasons. One of the most interesting and influential components of SSC is the way in which it has redefined traditional notions of regionalism. One can look to Katzenstein’s (2005) concept of porous regions to examine the idea of regions not being geographically bound. SSC has created regions that transcend not just borders, but also continents.

While there are countless examples of SSC, we have chosen to concentrate on nine key areas, namely for their integral importance in understanding and viewing the growing SSC dialogue: IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa); BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa); MIIST (Mexico, Indonesia, India, South Korea, Turkey); MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey); China and Africa; continental Africa; Middle East and North Africa (MENA); Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), including Small Island Developing States (SIDS); and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Although our contributing chapters do not investigate all of these regions in detail, they are important to mention in an introductory chapter as they exemplify the shift from country-to-country regionalism toward regional blocs as an important development in SSC.

IBSA: India, Brazil, South Africa

IBSA is a unique forum that brings together India, Brazil, and South Africa, three large democracies and major economies from three different continents with similar challenges. All three countries are developing pluralistic, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multilingual, and multireligious nations. The idea of establishing IBSA was discussed at a meeting between the then prime minister of India and the then presidents of Brazil and South Africa in Evian on June 2, 2003, prior to the G8 summit. The grouping was formalized and named the IBSA Dialogue Forum when the foreign ministers of the three countries met in Brasilia on June 6, 2003, to issue the Brasilia Declaration.

BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa

Brazil, Russia, India, China and, later, South Africa are the countries that formed BRICS, which was the first newly emerging regional bloc to be identified as a collective group shifting from an impoverished to a growing economy. These five countries demonstrate that regionalism in SSC is not limited to regions of geography. In contrast, BRICS comprises numerous global geographical regions and is crafted as a global region because of these countries’ thriving economies. In addition, the five countries share common challenges. They are the economic powerhouses within their poor geographical regions yet have the economic prowess to improve their national development. For example, both Brazil and South Africa are the largest economies in South America and Africa. However, in the absence of having neighbouring states with similarly large economies, it proved difficult to bolster their necessary trade relations. In 2001, Jim O’Neill, retiring chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, recognized these countries’ similarities. Interestingly, it was not until after O’Neill’s analysis regarding these countries that they began to trade with one another (O’Neill 2011).

At present, the five BRICS countries have grown into a powerful and well-recognized economic bloc, garnering the attention of numerous countries and institutions, including the International Monetary Fund. The ability of these large economies to trade with one another has enabled them to live up to their growth potential. Indeed, BRICS is a quintessential example of SSC at its finest—cooperation that extends beyond geographical borders and even traditional regions determined solely by geography.

MIIST: Mexico, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey

MIIST is the latest agglomeration identified by Goldman Sachs and comprises the emerging economies of Mexico, India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey. These nations are the biggest markets in Goldman Sachs, N-11 Equity Fund, and share similarities such as big economies at 1 percent of global GDP each, a large population and labour market, and membership in the G20. While South Korea is significantly richer than the rest, Turkey has the most growth potential due to its geographic proximity to Central Asia, Russia, the Middle East, and Europe. It might even to be to its long-term advantage if Turkey does not become a European Union member. Indonesia is Southeast Asia’s second largest economy and has shown strong resilience even in the midst of global debt problems. Mexico has the benefit of controlled and stable inflation as well as economic improvement due to its ties to the United States.

MINT: Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey

The MINT countries of Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Turkey are projected to be the next BRICS, demonstrating that emerging Southern markets are critical to the global economic landscape. Economic growth between 2009 and 2012 for these countries averages 4.7 percent and is projected by the International Monetary Fund to grow at a rate of 5.2 percent until 2018 (Rice, 2013). Interestingly, MINTs share more commonalities than simply their relative rate of economic growth. They have large and growing populations with plentiful supplies of young workers, which Elliot (2014) argues is in contrast to many other countries where aging populations will make job security and efficacy questionable, including in China. The production of commodities, especially in Mexico, Indonesia, and Nigeria, is essential for the needs of industrializing economies, especially throughout Asia. It is predicted that MINT will continue to grow through their ability to provide much-needed resources for industrializing economies.

Geography is another attractive feature of the MINT countries. Each country enables access to an increasingly important trade route. For SSC, the opening trade regions that these countries offer have the potential to increase SSC through better economic practices within these geographies. For example, the growing industries in Southeast Asia and increased production in Indonesia make trade within this bloc a perfect recipe for growth of SSC in the region.

MINT is a new concept with very little scholarship. What does exist is more in terms of projections and an emphasis on why MINT was coined as a collection of newly emerging powerhouses by Jim O’Neill. However, its recent coinage is indicative of the ever-expanding importance, and existence, of SSC, and the way in which the global economic sphere is increasingly creating opportunities.

Sino-African Relations

China is an important member of BRICS, but independently it has become a major player in the story of SSC in Africa over the last decade. The 2006 China’s African Policy demonstrates that the Government of the People’s Republic of China was establishing a very strategic means for securing its relationship with the continent.

The main imports from Africa to China are oil, iron ore, cotton, diamonds, and logs (Guerrero and Manji 2008, 2). Africa has increased its imports from China, particularly in the area of technology, clothing, and motorcycles (Zafar 2007). China’s cooperation with Africa has led to not only increased goods, but also the elimination of trade barriers. Average tariff prices fell from close to 25 percent in 1997 to less than 10 percent in 2005 (Zafar 2007, 117).

While China has done some work in more traditional development assistance, most notably in the form of infrastructure (for example, in the building of hospitals, schools, and roads), the Chinese distinguish their relationship with Africa from Western influence by being predominantly focused on trade, not aid. This system is seen to move away from the consequences of a very top-down system created by the West, with such repercussions as the decline of social development following structural adjustment programs in the 1980s (Moyo 2009). In contrast, the Chinese non-interference policy is intended to secure economic Sino-African relations without political or cultural conditions. As Zafar (2007, 106) notes, China’s pledge of noninterference in countries’ internal affairs and lack of lending conditions on governance or fiscal management have elicited positive reactions from several governments. This non-interference has also received much criticism, especially when China works in countries in conflict, including Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

What is particularly noteworthy for a discussion of the emergence of SSC is the fact that China’s non-interference is in many ways grounded in the country’s own history of control by Japan. China’s insistence on a non-interference strategy displays an overarching commitment to securing economic ties without political interference. The fact that China shares a similar legacy with Africa with respect to colonialism, and shapes its policies in recognition of this legacy, demonstrates that a shared history can impact the form of SSC.

Continental Africa

Insomuch as Sino-African relations are shaping the economic trade on the continent, SSC also exists within countries across the continent, independent of other countries and regions. In recent years, several trade systems have opened up, particularly in major economic blocs, including the East African Community (EAC), the South African Development Community (SADC), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). The tripartite free trade area consisting of the EAC, COMESA, and SADC shows the opportunity for increased free trade across these areas.

Within their own jurisdictions, these trade blocs operate as prime examples of SSC. The EAC, comprising Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, and Rwanda, boasts the elimination of internal tariffs for the majority of products moving across these borders (exceptions include dental and medical services across Tanzania and telecommunications to Kenya). Trade across the EAC continues to rise—growing from US$79.9 billion in 2009 to US$84.7 billion in 2011 (EAC 2012, 1).

COMESA, comprising nineteen states across the southeastern African region, in contrast to SADC, comprising fifteen southern African states, has achieved 85 percent trade liberalization (Othieno and Shinyekwa 2011, 8). Both organizations have improved trade across their borders by promoting trade within these trading blocs. Trade within SADC has more than doubled, with intra-SADC trade estimated to have grown from about US$13.2 billion in 2000 to about US$34 billion in 2009 (SADC 2012).

ECOWAS comprises fifteen West African states, including those that are further joined by the French Community of Africa [trans.] (CFA) common currency. ECOWAS has a trade liberalization scheme known as aid for trade that encourages trade within its borders to ensure economic advancement void of external economic assistance. This is particularly noteworthy, because it demonstrates that the academic scholarship that assumes a shift from traditional aid policies to economic trade is becoming a reality in economic blocs in Africa.

Middle East Trading Blocs

The Middle East and North Africa is an interesting example of regionalism because it demonstrates that regional blocs are not necessarily purely geographic and economic in nature. On the contrary, the countries in this region share not only a geographic proximity, but also, perhaps more importantly, a shared culture, particularly in their devotion to Islam. The importance of the region’s socio-cultural realities is interesting given that MENA is, according to the World Bank, an economically diverse region that includes both the oil-rich economies in the Gulf and countries that are resource-scarce in relation to population, such as Egypt, Morocco, and Yemen (World Bank 2014).

According to the World Bank’s overview of the region, the area is moving toward more of a focus on trade and private investment. The Pan-Arab Free Trade Area (PAFTA) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are institutionalized free trade agreements that exist within the MENA area. While MENA is important, countries within PAFTA and the GCC still trade primarily with each other. This set-up ensures that the richer states can still benefit from trade relations with the richer countries, rather than simply providing economic freedom to the poorer countries.

Latin America and the Caribbean

Latin America and the Caribbean is such a large and diverse area that we hesitate to describe this as a region. However, for the purposes of a summary examination of SSC, it is an important area to discuss. First, two of the countries from the BRICS and MINT blocs, Brazil and Mexico, respectively, come from this region. Latin America and the Caribbean have typically been insular in focus; the dependency theory conceptualized by the dependenistas in the 1960s followed by import substitution industrialization are examples of policies that sought to benefit this region first and foremost (Rist 2003). Indeed, these countries—with a shared history, similar political system and culture, and, for the most part, intact language—have historically traded first with each other. Thus, Brazil and Mexico, two global economic powerhouses, have worked at ensuring their strength is felt by their Latin neighbours. The Union of South American Nations [trans.] (UNASUR), Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and the Southern Common Market [trans.] (Mercado Comun del Sur, MERCOSUR/Mercado Comun do Sul, Mercosul) are the major economic blocs in the region. The separation between CARICOM and MERCOSUR/MERCOSUL creates an important distinction between Caribbean and Latin American countries.

ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is one of the most significant trade associations of the modern era. Since its inception in 1967, ASEAN has helped the Southeast Asian states gain both political and economic momentum, thanks to a particular focus on trade with each other and on securing relations with more advanced countries—for example, through the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement. ASEAN Vision 2020, established in 1997, outlines measures to heighten collaboration and integration between countries within the region, and national policies have supported this mandate.

Policy Focus of SSC

South-South Cooperation (SSC) is not limited to these nine trading blocs, but their increasing relevance is noteworthy and demonstrates that SSC is not just about country-to-country trade but about regional cooperation. Moreover, it highlights the shifting conceptualization of the term region from a geographical term to one that encompasses economic, cultural, and political nuances.

SSC is unique in that it has outcomes beyond trade. States and regions are compelled to introduce or increase SSC for a variety of outcomes. The main reasons for the focus on SSC are research, training, and development; SSC as aid; SSC as trade; and the recognition of differences between SSC and North-South Cooperation. These varying policy foci are discussed below.

SSC in Research, Training, and Development

Current research and training in the area of SSC seeks to find ways to use the system to improve development issues. For example, Cruz (2010), and Chandiwana and Ornbjerg (2003) each argue that SSC has the ability to improve knowledge and research capabilities across Southern areas. Indeed, by providing a free flow of knowledge exchange, countries in the Global South would have a greater ability to learn from each other—particularly in areas necessitating research, such as health and nutrition. The International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (2012) indicates in a report that SSC can promote inclusive and sustainable agricultural development. Research and training in SSC are quite small. However, as developing countries further embrace SSC as a concept and a practice, there will be a growing need for research that investigates non-economic outcomes of this cooperation.

SSC as Trade and Aid

SSC is best known as a form of trade between countries and regions of the developing world. Since the 1987 Adjustment with a Human Face United Nations Children’s Fund report, which criticized the International Monetary Fund and World Bank for its social failures in structural adjustment programs, aid policies have come under the scrutiny of policymakers and activists alike. More recently, scholars such as Moyo (2012) have posited trade, not aid as the way forward for ensuring that Southern countries are empowered within themselves to develop. SSC is identified as a means for bottom-up development: South-South rather than North-South linkages that emphasize economic growth from within rather than continual reliance on foreign aid. It has been previously argued that the similar status of financial instability across the Global South has brought a form of cooperation through mutual understanding of financial status (Najam and Thrasher 2012). This volume focuses attention on the current structure of international aid cooperation with the emergence of SSC. As well, while North-South aid relationships were buried within notions of altruism, in fact inequality, policies, and conditionalities underlined these partnerships (Chaturvedi, Fues, and Sidiropoulos 2012). However, it should be noted that these authors recognize that these criticisms also exist in South-South partnerships.

In 1982, Shridath Ramphal wrote a piece that can be seen to almost foreshadow the current SSC existing in the Global South (Ramphal 1982). He argued that the dominance of Western powers in North-South countries meant that developing countries needed to shift to relationships that kept economic growth within their boundaries. He saw economic cooperation between developing countries as an even better opportunity for growth than shifting to the then-proposed Group of 77. Some thirty-six years later, Ramphal’s paper bears much truth. The 1978 signing of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, which adopted the instrument of technical cooperation among developing countries, further illustrates an emerging recognition of the need for SSC during this period. Indeed, SSC is used as a way to improve economic conditions in the developing world, recognizing that the traditional structure of development that shows Southern countries’ reliance on Northern assistance has not been successful. However, present increases in SSC, and their benefits to the developing world, are noteworthy because of the sheer growth in these forms of cooperation. Much of this has to do with change to traditional development.

Scholars have recently argued that financial development assistance is not just ineffective but, damaging to economic growth prospects for the developing country (Bauer 2000; Easterly 2012; Moyo 2012; Coyne and Ryan 2009; Leeson 2008; Prokopijevic 2006). Easterly (2006, 4) explains that

Over the past 42 years, $568 billion (in today’s dollars) flowed into Africa, yet per capita growth of the median African nation has been close to zero. The top quarter of aid recipients … received 17 percent of their GDP in aid over those 42 years, yet they also had near-zero per capita growth. Successful cases of development due to a large inflow of aid and technical assistance have been hard to find.

In addition to the poor track record of aid effectiveness, the aggressive economic growth of non-aid recipient countries is also noteworthy, especially when examining the case of the so-called Four Asian Tigers, named because of their aggressive growth.

In many ways, SSC is an attempt to realize the mantra of trade, not aid. The Pacific countries, for example, have heightened their economic connectivity with one another and lessened their ties with Commonwealth states, including Australia and New Zealand; the latter may share geographic proximity, but their placement as developed countries removes them from attempts at collaboration between lesser-developed countries. Perhaps the attribute of SSC considered most attractive by lesser-developed states is the horizontal, rather than vertical, form of networking. Slaughter (2004) argued that the global structure is shifting such that relationships are more horizontal, rather than vertical, in scope. Glennie (2011) agrees, asserting that the shift to SSC, inherently a horizontal formation, is the future of international development..

At the first China-Africa ministerial conference, leaders agreed on a broad program of SSC, based on equality and mutual benefit, that included provisions on trade, investment, debt relief, tourism, migration, health, education, and human resources development (Kindornay 2011, 13). These goals are clearly comparable to those of international development, including the broad-based papers dealing with millennium development goals and poverty reduction strategy. Moreover, SSC has been highlighted as an important component for achieving the new sustainable development goals, expanding on the opportunities listed in the 1978 Buenos Aires Plan of Action for Promoting and Implementing Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (UNDP 1978). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), for example, has committed to South-South and Triangular Cooperation within its Africa Regional Programme initiative (UNDP 2014).

What this shows, then, is that SSC is encouraging development, while at the same time seeking to promote economic relevance and support between Southern countries.

SSC and Its Institutional Forms

The United Nations (UN) has been very involved in efforts to establish SSC. The High-Level Committee on SSC is a sub-committee of the General Assembly, and the UN Office for SSC is embedded within the UNDP. Together, these bodies research, review, and propose policy to improve the experience and advance the scope of SSC. The existence and mandates of these bodies indicate the relevance and importance the UN system places on SSC as a whole. The most recent high-level committee meeting in April 2016 sought to promote socio-economic transformation through infrastructure development, employment creation, social cohesion and transfer of technologies using SSC (SSC 2012).

Indeed, the majority of the UN system that is interested in the developing world has institutionalized SSC: UNDP, as mentioned; United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, through its 2012 Multi-year Expert Meeting on International Cooperation: SSC and Regional Integration; and the UN Economics and Social Council, through its creation of background documents that seek to observe the importance